> > > Perfectly. Although all the hassle makes me think even harder
> > > if there is really no other way of connecting these two
> > > database tables. A casted join with string comparison gets
> > > dirtier every time I look at it. :(
> >
> > excuse me if it sounds dumb... what about a middleman table of
> > proper (casted) values that is automaticaly build by some
> > trigger? i can guess at least 3 objections right now, but it is
> > an option in general principle...
>
> Doesn't sound dumb at all. I assume you are thinking of an
> intermediary table that is connecting primary keys like "row 10 of
> dns table is connected to row 515 of dhcp table". 
no, i was thinking of a "facade" table having just 1 column, a casted 
copy of the to-be-casted original column. i guess some primarykey 
sync/join would be needed too. and u use that table/column instead of 
the original column. it also looks a bit like multitable inheritance, 
this table being the child in the inheritance with one new 
attribute - but it is not real inheritance; and has a calculable 
attribute done by triggers, both ways.
or u may copy+cast the whole original table...

but your new idea of association-table may also work.
whatever.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sqlalchemy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to